The Market Ticker
Commentary on The Capital Markets- Category [Editorial]
Logging in or registering will improve your experience here
Main Navigation
MUST-READ Selection(s):
America Is DONE

Display list of topics

Sarah's Resources You Should See
Sarah's Blog Buy Sarah's Pictures
Full-Text Search & Archives

Legal Disclaimer

The content on this site is provided without any warranty, express or implied. All opinions expressed on this site are those of the author and may contain errors or omissions.


The author may have a position in any company or security mentioned herein. Actions you undertake as a consequence of any analysis, opinion or advertisement on this site are your sole responsibility.

Market charts, when present, used with permission of TD Ameritrade/ThinkOrSwim Inc. Neither TD Ameritrade or ThinkOrSwim have reviewed, approved or disapproved any content herein.

The Market Ticker content may be sent unmodified to lawmakers via print or electronic means or excerpted online for non-commercial purposes provided full attribution is given and the original article source is linked to. Please contact Karl Denninger for reprint permission in other media, to republish full articles, or for any commercial use (which includes any site where advertising is displayed.)

Submissions or tips on matters of economic or political interest may be sent "over the transom" to The Editor at any time. To be considered for publication your submission must include full and correct contact information and be related to an economic or political matter of the day. All submissions become the property of The Market Ticker.

Considering sending spam? Read this first.

2019-03-21 14:02 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 678 references
[Comments enabled]  

When In The Course of Human Events......

The Founders of this nation put forward a very basic premise:

to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them

That no government, no person whether royalty or not, King, Queen or Pawn, can take from one to give to another, to make one lesser than another, to bring remove from one the basics of humanity for the privilege of another.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

That the very premise of humanity is that one has a right to live, to be left alone to do as one pleases, and to pursue -- but not be guaranteed -- happiness.  The only lawful and proper constraints arise when your exercise of same prevents someone else from having that same peaceful enjoyment.

One cannot have a right to life if one cannot defend it using tools at least as powerful as those who would take it from you.

One cannot have liberty if one is compelled to slavery for another's benefit.

The Founders put together a document called The Constitution.  The debate over it, and what needed to be added to it, is found in The Federalist and The Anti-Federalist; two books that are the chronology of the running debate of the time.  Anyone who claims to have an opinion on the foundations of our nation and why the Constitution is important ought to have read both, as should anyone who claims a right to run for elective office at any level -- state, local or federal.

Chief among the foundation of this nation is The Rule of Law and that it apply equally to everyone, all the time, in each case without exception.  Our government and We The People have made a mockery of this.

Not one illegal immigrant has a right to be here under any circumstance; The Rule of Law says so.  It does not matter whether they personally intended to break said law; that merely encompasses whether they bear criminal culpability for the offense.  If you find yourself with someone else's $1,000 and you did not intend to steal it, but you had no lawful means by which you came to have it you still have no right to keep it.

Calling someone a Dreamer is an insult to America.  Their "dream" is theft.  A thief has no right to keep the spoils irrespective of their personal culpability in obtaining same nor do they have any right to demand respect from anyone else.

Senators Richard Blumenthal and Mark Warner, both Democrats, have threatened legislation that is a rank violation of the First Amendment in response to the Christchurch livestream.  Where is respect for the contract our government has with the people; the terms of which are embodied in The Constitution and its Amendments?

There is no respect because the people of this nation no longer have respect for themselves nor any willingness to hold government to the terms and conditions of its very existence.

Every single person in America should not only watch the Christchurch slaughter they should watch all videos of any extremist Muslim who saws off heads or throws gays off buildings.  It is not possible to understand evil and the only effective means to stop it if you refuse to recognize it exists and watch the errors others made that led them to their demise.

How many gay people would support a person who supports said political and religious philosophies if videos of those adherents murdering gay people by throwing them off 20 story buildings were readily available?  Why do you think Senators Blumenthal and Warner want that content declared illegal despite it being a rank violation of the Constitution to do so?

Governments are banning and attempting to ban such not because they fear copycats: They are banning that speech and literally burning books because faced with the gore, the nastiness and inhumanity of these acts the people may conclude that it was the government itself that sowed the seeds of these acts, conspired with and gave comfort to said people and groups all the while rendering individual people powerless to stop it by infringing on The Right to Keep and Bear Arms -- and did all of the above intentionally.

Were the people to reach that conclusion they'd be correct and in response they might revoke their consent to said government entirely and demand it depart.

A slave is not allowed weapons because he might use them to become free.

Cultures collapse when there is no cohesion remaining -- when the primary means to get ahead is to stomp on someone else's head instead of innovating and when cheating is no longer punished and is celebrated instead.  If that is not curtailed then collapse is inevitable -- it is simply a matter of time.

Whether something is "hate speech" is in the eye of the beholder but irrespective of that The First Amendment protects it.  Why?  Because even the most-vile expression of dislike is one's right to hold and have.  To state otherwise is to state a right to control another person's mind and thoughts -- to not only enslave as to labor but to thought itself.

That is profoundly evil.  It is what the Communist Chinese are doing right now with the Uyghurs, numbering more than 11 million of their citizens.

This very same act is what our government is now calling on "big companies" to do, it is what the left has repeatedly done to anyone who dares speak against their policies and desires whether on college campuses, in corporate America or in the public square and now we have two Senators who deserve an immediate and long prison term for their threat to knowingly and intentionally violate their oath of office and The First Amendment, including the threat to impose said violation by force.

Celebrities with dim-witted children got them into colleges by paying bribes and cheating.  The claim that said students were "blameless" if their test scores were faked or they faked a "disability" to extend time and thus be able to cheat is a lie.  Said "students" are fully culpable yet none of them have been charged; not only did every one of them know they didn't compete on the rowing team (for example) any of them who got an extra hour or two to take the SAT or ACT knew damn well they were cheating, whether they knew their answers were being modified or not.

Why did this happen and why aren't the kids in the dock too?


Colleges claim they need "diversity."  That's nonsense; in a meritocracy the best rise irrespective of skin color, race or religion.  The fact is that this "diversity need" is met by lowering standards and allowing unqualified people who cannot do the work into the school.  This was going on in the 1990s and it has only gotten worse -- much worse -- since.  There is, of course, no value in that to a person "selected" via "diversity" if they have to pay full price and will inevitably fail to be able to do the work.  This in turn means someone else gets screwed so they don't have to pay full price and they also don't have to do the work they are incapable of.  The alleged "degree" conferred by said school is thus rendered meaningless; it no longer denotes competence and to prevent that from being recognized and their "brand" destroyed said colleges conspire with employers and governments, both outwardly and not to "require" said "credentials" for an ever-expanding list of "professions."

In short college is no longer about education; it is about grift, fraud, bribery and slavery.  It's a racketeering enterprise writ large and ought to be prosecuted as a felony, starting with the "most-elite" schools.  Is it any surprise that a tiny bit of the bribery began six months earlier with so-called "standardized" testing that really isn't and claims of being on a soccer team that were false?


The Fed is prohibited from buying anything other than government backed securities.  Fannie and Freddie paper have on their face the statement that they have no such backing; go online and view any of their prospectuses.  I pointed this out more than 10 years ago with a copy of the front page of one such offering out of thousands; every one bears the same statement.  That the government bailed them out does not matter.  The Fed's transacting in same and their continued ownership is illegal.  Rather than change the law (which might provoke a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints") they simply ignore the law and you let them.

The Fed's legal mandate under the law is for stable prices.  The Fed's chair and other governors make dozens of speeches a year and testify under oath before Congress to their intent to violate the law with their "2% inflation target."  Congress could change that law but doing so might provoke a debate over exactly what The Fed "prints" and so instead both Congress and The Fed ignore the law and you let them.

The truth is that Money is a medium of exchange which you acquire by producing something of value to someone else.  It facilitates trade because it is fungible -- that is, you don't need to transact in oranges, chickens or hours of programming a computer; all three can be reduced to money.

You cannot print money because it is impossible to materialize a television, a car, a piece of computer software, gasoline or electrical power out of thin air.

You can print credit, which spends like money.  But if you emit credit then what you are claiming is that someone in the future will produce a thing to legitimate what you did.  If the people refuse what's left?  Force -- slavery in point of fact.


Pakastani American named Imran Awan worked for Democrats in Congress from 2004 - 2017.  While doing so it is rather apparent he ran a spy ring inside Congress and stole Congressional computer equipment, much of it with the knowledge of Congressional Democrats.  Prosecuting him would have inevitably drawn those Democrats into what could have easily wound up being criminal culpability including spying for foreign nations.  So they let him go despite proof that he wired more than $280,000 to Pakistan -- funds that very well might have been used to facilitate terrorism!


It is a felony to restrain trade, attempt to monopolize or fix prices among people who are supposed to be competing.  The medical industry does it every single day.  Why not when the example set is that if you're rich or powerful (and they are both) you could even spy for a foreign nation and get away with it.  We could literally dispose of the entire federal budget deficitall of the Federal debt, all of the state and local pension problems and cut property taxes in half or more if we put a stop to this crap.  They do it because despite the law they have no fear of prosecution.  Why should they?


I can, through hard work, earn a mid-six-figure income and have multiple business ideas that I'd like to develop.  I've done it before and can do it again.  But given the above examples, along with the myriad things I've watched big business do in the last 20 years and get away with all of them -- acts that were I to do myself I would be prosecuted criminally and go to prison, why would I?  If I was to undertake any of those risky ventures and put my capital and intellectual effort at risk any of those people could illegally undermine my product or service, putting me out of business or simply steal it.  Unless I was willing to personally kill the persons responsible there is nothing I could do about it and I'd go broke.  I will not undertake such a venture for as long as all of this crap exists, and that's why.  I instead choose to hike, ski, run, drink beer and enjoy a much lower stress lifestyle.  I do not need any of the trappings of wealth; they're options.  When my time comes to die those ideas,  products and services intentionally left undeveloped will die with me instead of being produced.


The Christchurch shooter, obviously nuts, wrote a "manifesto" which governments are actively trying to suppress your ability to read.  In it he pointed out an inconvenient truth -- that there is no nation with a material white population percentage in which white women are reproducing at a replacement or better rate.  That is, unless this changes white people will eventually go extinct.

We bemoan a little fish, frog or bird disappearing but there is literally not one word in the media about the most-productive and innovative differentiated group of human beings ever to walk the planet heading directly for extinction by their own voluntary decision.  Why are white women choosing not to bear children?  Maybe it's because a goodly number of them have come to the same conclusion I have -- that there is no rule of law -- and thus unless they're so rich they can cheat like those who did so to get their kids into college their offspring have no chance of success on a merit basis and they thus make the entirely reasonable decision not to create children at all.  After all why would you willingly and intentionally bring a child into this world if you believe they are going to be enslaved and mercilessly robbed for their entire lives?

Rather than correct that problem governments instead are importing people who have not yet made that determination or worse, believe and are explicitly promised that they can simply put their hand out and force others to provide whatever they want and need -- and thus those people make the entirely reasonable decision to breed like rabbits!


We have in fact become so depraved that our own government is giving cats diseases on purpose to study them and even though those diseases are easily curable and the animals could then be adopted out that takes a bit of effort and more than a a nickel in cost so they kill them instead.  That would be bad enough but our government is also importing cats and dogs from nations around the world for the purpose of meat to feed said study subjects, practicing animal cannibalism.  We can't be bothered to use byproducts of human food production; you see, that might cost a bit more money.

I'm not the only one who recognizes this; here's another article pointing out many of the same things.

America is extended, riddled with debt and too reliant on ever more debt, past its growth peak, incapable and unwilling to address structural issues. Both political parties have given up on dealing with debt, illusory monetary policies such as MMT are invented to render structural issues as irrelevant. Meanwhile wealth inequality keeps expanding from administration to administration no matter who is in charge with voters distracted by the ideological divisions of the day, not trusting their leaders or each other.

And all this with 3.8% unemployment. What will this all look like during the next downturn? Nobody knows. Rome showed us to not take civilization for granted. It also showed us to not ignore structural problems before they become too large to tackle.

Sven may be hopeful but I am not.  I'm not alone either.  Charles Hugh Smith has written a number of columns on this same point, including just recently.

I challenge you to show me just one "grand idea" or modern stock market rocketship that is not a scam in some form over the last 10+ years.  Netflix, as just one example, effectively stole their entire distribution infrastructure, which is very expensive, through various forms of browbeating and when that was threatened they got the government to mandate their ability to force non-customers to pay for what they wanted during the Obama Administration.  Then, when Obama left, both he and his wife got a multi-million dollar contract from the company.  You don't really think that was the kickback payment to the former President since the stock went from ~$5 when Obama took office to nearly $400 now....

I've written on many of these other firms, in detail, over the last decade.  None of them would exist were there an even-handed enforcement of the law for the simple reason that all of them violate the basic law of business balance: The more people who touch a transaction the more it costs -- always.  The reason for that is simple: Nobody works for free and if you think you've found someone who is someone else is stealing from them because no rational person will perform work that benefits only someone else.


This can't -- and won't -- change without Americans rising up by the millions and demanding that it stop and be willing to enforce that demand by whatever means are necessary.  This does not mean violence is required but until and unless those who claim to be "our leaders" believe that any such demand has the force of the people behind it and will be enforced should they stick up their middle finger toward common people once again as they have done for the last 30+ years they have no reason to stop stealing, stop rigging the system and stop screwing everyone else.

There's no reason for me to be hopeful because there is no reason to believe that Americans, say much less the people in any of the other developed, western nations will in fact demand this crap stop.  In fact there is every reason to simply sit back and enjoy what little time is left, given that within the next six years tipping points will be reached in the US on a budget and monetary basis that will destroy the illusion of "growth and prosperity" and from which there is little or no chance of recovery.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-03-21 09:35 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 81 references
[Comments enabled]  

It's clear that we need changes.

The newspaper world has for decades, if not longer, buried "retractions" and "corrections."  Joe Schmoe Arrested! screams the headline, with a story stating that Joe raped some woman -- and kicked a puppy.

Then, three days later, Joe is set free.  He didn't do it and can prove it, and the cops quietly let him go.

The half-page, front-page above the fold story is met with a 1 column x 2 inch high "update" on page 15, buried next to car dealer ads that nobody looks at.

Joe is ruined.

But..... the paper only went so far then.

Now the digital pile-on happens instantly and they're not just selling ad space in the paper, said ads are sold based on number of clicks, so unlike the days of old there is much more incentive to report fast and damn the truth to Hell.

Ok, so let's fix it by making truth important enough that reckless disregard or attempting to duck responsibility when you get it wrong becomes ruinously expensive.

  • A correction or retraction must run in the same space, for the same time, and with the same placement as the original.  If you're a digital paper or blog operator and you do an article on Joe when you discover he was exonerated you have a duty to report that fact as breathlessly and with the same placement you put into the original.  This was impractical in the days of print newspapers, but it isn't today in the world of electronic distribution.

  • A correction or retraction that isn't in fact either, is not issued within a reasonable time of the media in question becoming aware of it, doubles down in the face of contrary evidence or fails to meet the above standard exposes said outlet to the full brunt of a libel claim, without exception.

  • A story that is later retracted and was based upon confidential sources that were not disclosed voids libel protection for the media outlet involved unless the source(s) of the debunked claim(s) are named in the retraction or correction.  Use all the confidential sources you'd like but if they're proved to have lied and a media organization shelters them from the consequences of their lies said media organization assumes the liability that would otherwise attach to said "source."

  • A "social media" firm or other entity that allows submission of content directly (e.g. Facebook, Twitter, etc) and fails to immediately remove all existing links and shares, along with refusing to block future "shares" and other submission of retracted content once they have been notified by the innocent yet accused party loses all protection against libel judgments including but not limited to Section 230 of the CDA.  You don't have to proactively remove such content but once notified you have a duty to expeditiously do so.  It is an affirmative defense to such a suit that the submitter(s) intentionally circumvented automated processes to prevent said re-submission, provided that upon identification by an aggrieved party said account(s) who do so are permanently disabled and the identity of the person(s) holding or controlling said account(s) is disclosed to the complaining party.

That should pretty-much do it.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-03-20 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 139 references
[Comments enabled]  

This is an interesting case on many levels.

California GOP Rep. Devin Nunes, who has opened a $250 million lawsuit against Twitter alleging that the social media company negligently failed to remove defamatory and malicious tweets against him and his family, told Fox News on Monday that the lawsuit will be "the first of many."

Appearing on Fox News’ "Hannity," Nunes said he was going after Twitter first because they “are the main proliferator” of “fake” and “slanderous” news.

“The case we’re basically making is this was an orchestrated effort. So people were targeting me, there were anonymous accounts that were developed … and these accounts are not supposed to exist. Twitter says that they don’t have accounts that do this,” he said.

The first problem Nunes faces is the CDA, specifically Section 230.  It was passed by Congress to "clear up" potential issues related to what at the time was a case-law based immunity in most but not all cases for Internet-related service providers.

It's a crap law, passed by the lobbyists for the nascent Internet industry around the time of the .COM crash, and is yet another shining example of how business interests manage to go so far that even criminal conduct can be profited from with no more than a wink-wink-nod-nod from the felons-on-the-Potomac.

Section 230 provides extremely broad protection to a service provider who has some third party -- any third party -- post material on their site. This would appear to basically make Twitter immune, but it's not that clear.

What Nunes accuses Twitter of, and where he states he believes liability lies, isn't in the content itself.  It's in selectively allowing certain people who violate the Terms of Service to stay while booting others who may or may not violate the terms of service.  It's a novel argument and one that as far I can tell is a question of first impression: Can an provider as defined by Section 230 of the CDA publish Terms of Service and then deliberately or through negligence effectively allow a mob to form, take root and even take knowing comfort on said property while hiding behind the Section 230 shield -- and in fact go even further, refusing to turn over identification of the people who posted the material?

I think he's got a shot here.  It's not a slam-dunk by any means, but one of the key points here, which I suspect through discovery Nunes can prove -- is that these firms both collaborate in terms of political viewpoints and that their staff not only is ridiculously biased from a viewpoint perspective but is allowed to express that in corporate activity and, as a key point, they're lying about it in their claims that their rules are in fact content neutral and fact-based.

How many of these "social networks" would have any advertiser support if they were forced to openly proclaim that if you were conservative you were not welcome and subject to bias in decision-making and even account removal and censorship, while if you were liberal, gay, bi, transgender or a minority you could do literally anything you wanted, terms-of-service be damned, and it was all fine?

That would be an extraordinarily difficult board room discussion among advertisers were these so-called "social networks" forced to publicly proclaim the truth about their positions and that they selectively enforce their terms of service to advance same.

I'm sure Twitter will try to file a motion to dismiss on Section 230 grounds but if it fails, and discovery commences, that alone may force into the open and public exactly the point above -- and by doing so destroy the advertiser base these firms rely on to stay in business.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-03-18 07:00 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 432 references
[Comments enabled]  

Whereas the First Amendment guarantees the right to freedom of speech.

Whereas the Internet has taken over from print and other traditional media in the distribution of speech, both on an individual, one-to-one basis and on a one-to-many basis.

Whereas Internet distribution encompasses what was traditionally considered "printed words", live and recorded speech, along with live and recorded video, and likely will encompass further means of communication not yet envisioned.

Whereas the First Amendment's guarantees, unless extended and secured by the dominant media distribution methods of the day is rendered meaningless, an outrage that neither the Founders or contemporary Americans should tolerate.

Therefore it is enacted:


  • Utility Internet Services (UIS) are those which are now and become in the future essential to participation in and publication of material on the Internet.  Said services include but are not limited to Domain Name Registration, Domain Name Resolution, Packet-Switched Routing, Dedicated Fixed Wired and Wireless Packet Service (irrespective of whether the wires involved are copper, glass, or other materials not yet invented), and CPU, Disk or Network Resource that are attached to or reachable by the Internet, whether provisioned with an operating system and application software or "bare" and whether provided on a dedicated, leased or "cloud" and shared basis.

  • Application Internet Services (AIS) are those services built upon or run within UIS that are (1) branded, (2) present a consistent presence to a consumer that are distinct from other AIS and do not provide the services of a UIS.  Examples of an AIS include but are not limited to Facebook, Snap, Twitter, The NY Post's online web presence and others.

  • Financial Internet Services (FIS) are those services that are built upon or run with UIS that are (1) branded and (2) primarily provide the functionality of transferring funds to or from one party to another, whether as part of an AIS or separately.  Examples of a FIS include PayPal, Square and Venmo.

  • Viewpoint means any and all political, personal or commercial perspectives, expressed beliefs or statements, whether factual or opinion and irrespective of the means of expression whether verbal, via imagery or otherwise, that is lawful to express under the laws of The United States.  A viewpoint does not encompass depictions or acts that constitute per-se violations of United States law, including but not limited to child pornography or exploitation and the transmission of "spam" in violation of applicable law (e.g. the CAN-SPAM act.)

Prohibited Acts; Penalties and Exceptions

  • Neither a UIS or FIS may enjoin, refuse to provide services to or refuse to transact, interoperate with or otherwise discriminate for or against any person or entity who desires to or does transact with same on the basis of Viewpoint.

  • UIS shall not tamper with, inspect, modify or filter any lawful transmission of content through, by or to a customer, nor shall any such entity intercept, monitor or sell data pertaining to same to third parties for any purpose whatsoever except as specifically directed by a court of competent jurisdiction and subject to a warrant requiring same.  By way of example filtering, diverting, sorting or otherwise tampering with domain name lookup results is a violation of this section as is the examination of stored or in-transit data for any commercial purpose including targeted advertising.

  • An AIS may enjoin, refuse to provide services or refuse to transact on a Viewpoint basis, provided that said refusal does not violate any other federal non-discrimination statute in the United States, including but not limited to discrimination on the basis of race, color or creed and the rules upon which said conduct will be judged are both published and consistently applied.

  • FIS that violates this section shall have any linked federal money transmitting or banking charter suspended for six months upon the first violation, and permanently upon a second or subsequent violation.  Any aggrieved party may bring private civil suit for enforcement of this section and, upon prevailing, is entitled the the greater of $50,000 or treble the actual damages incurred and shall also recover all reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

  • UIS that violations this section shall be fined not less than $100,000 or more than $1 million for each person so injured or impacted for the first violation with the penalties doubling for each subsequent violation without limit.  Any aggrieved party may bring private civil suit for enforcement under this section and, upon prevailing is entitled to the greater of $50,000 or treble the actual damages incurred and shall also recover all reasonable attorneys fees and costs.

  • Nothing in this section shall prohibit content and viewpoint neutral constraints on customers, such as billing for the data, CPU or space consumed, limiting the rate of transactions (e.g. posting) or imposing, on a non-discriminatory basis, fees for service.

  • Nothing in this section shall prohibit the employees of a UIS, FIS or AIS from performing legitimate troubleshooting or investigation for the purpose of correcting "bugs" or other operational problems, or in the furtherance of investigating suspected fraudulent or illegal activity while using or facilitated through their services, provided that the interception and monitoring undertaken is performed only for that purpose and all copies of stored and intercepted data used therein are destroyed when the incident to which same pertains has been resolved.

That should pretty-much do it....

No, PayPal cannot refuse to allow people to send money to someone it considers a purveyor of "hate speech", as such is not illegal under the laws of the United States.

No, GoDaddy cannot refuse a domain registration provided the operator is not violating an actual law of the United States, nor can they terminate an existing registration except for non-payment of their fees or a proved violation of law.

No, the cable company cannot refuse you an Internet connection if you happen to have a picture of yourself in a white hood in your High School or College yearbook.

No, a hosting company cannot refuse to sell service to Glenn Beck on the same terms as it sells service to a LGBT organization.  It can, however, prohibit both from spamming people -- but cannot prohibit Glenn from spamming while allowing the LGBT people to do so.

If you get "deplatformed" or harmed by such a firm you can sue, and if you win not only will they get fined on an escalating basis if a financially-linked firm their federal banking connections will be severed on any second or repeated offense and the amount due to you is large enough to obtain both diversity jurisdiction in Federal Court and to make it hurt the entity who tries to do it.

Facebook or Youtube (for example) can ban people for whatever reason it wants. So can Twitter or, for that matter, The Market Ticker.  However, neither those firms nor any other collection of firms can get together to stop Gab, as a potential competitor, from establishing and maintaining service including taking money through and by it, and if they do all who are so-involved are exposed to ruinous fines and, in the case of a financially-related firm, the extinction of their business.

This does not address the monopolist concentration of power by, for example, Google and Youtube, nor Facebook and Google in the digital advertising realm.  It does, however, address firms and other parties attempting to destroy competing services such as Gab by targeting their ability to transact financially and connect physically to the Internet along with provisioning the services they need to operate on a non-discriminatory basis.  This act will instantly neuter the grievance industry attacks on those who might otherwise provide a legitimate competitive threat to those firms that are "AIS" types of providers yet go far down the road of censorship, and by doing so re-open the marketplace of ideas that so many are trying their damndest to slam shut.

Time to introduce and pass this folks...... right now.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)

2019-03-17 14:05 by Karl Denninger
in Editorial , 453 references
[Comments enabled]  

Well now that didn't take long.

New Zealand has apparently declared the video file of the Christchurch shooting contraband -- much like child pornography -- and has started threatening that citizens are subject to arrest and prosecution for possession of it, along with threatening any firm that hosts or otherwise "distributes" it.  In addition the government is apparently sending out record preservation letters (which you can safely assume will be shortly followed by subpoenas) demanding that IP address and access logs be preserved, which is fair to assume they intend to use to go after their citizens who violate said edict.

Of course there's zero means by which they can enforce any of this beyond their borders.  At least one site operated with no nexus to New Zealand at all has reported they received one -- by email no less -- and their response can be best characterized as "pound sand."

The ability to do that, of course, depends very much on where you are.  Here in the United States pound sand is perfectly sound since the 1st Amendment clearly protects both the manifesto and the video file.  The shooter himself could of course demand distribution cease beyond where he personally uploaded and distributed it (since he owns the copyright, obviously) but nobody else can do it in his stead since he's still very much alive and he made very clear both in word and action that he intended it be freely distributed.  Things would go into the weeds, however, should he have an "unfortunate accident" in custody since then his estate's executor might try to demand removal (!)

As I pointed out in my previous article you not only should download that video file and the shooter's "manifesto" you ought to make sure you watch it along with your children of age sufficient to be trusted to depart your immediate personal care at any time, including any kid who goes to school.  It is quite-arguably the best example we have seen thus far to date of what really happens in a real, no-bullcrap situation where some jackwad decides to go on a murderous rampage.  Despite there being myriad security and other video cameras all over the place after these events we never get a full, public, unedited release of the footage so you can see what people did and what resulted from their choices -- until now.

It's one thing to be told about it, it's another to see it -- to see the consequence of bad choices made by people under these extraordinarily-extreme circumstances.  Since if you make a bad choice in such a circumstance you won't get a second opportunity, and the video makes very clear that the so-called "wisdom" given by the so-called "experts" including government and police is 100% WRONG you can see why none of them would want you to understand that they have been lying to you for decades and believing their lies get people killed.

Specifically, the "advice" is "run, hide, play dead" and only as a last resort "fight."

That is exactly wrong, the authorities all know it and they've been intentionally lying to you and your children about what you should do in such a circumstance for decades.

The truth is that if you run, hide or play dead you get shot and die.

The only way "hide" works is if you can barricade yourself behind something that is hard cover (e.g. cement, brick, etc) and can be secured so the person trying to kill you can't get through the barrier.  In all other cases that's a bad choice.

If the attacker has a rifle "run" only works if you can get more than 100 yards away -- the length of a football field.  Any half-competent jackwad can nail you nearly 100% of the time at 100 yards or less which was amply demonstrated in that video.  If you run and the attacker has a rifle you die.

This was a modestly-skilled attacker, not a highly-trained individual.  Anyone can acquire that much skill in a very short period of time and virtually anyone who has ever hunted is probably at least that good.  In short he really wasn't that good -- from a tactical perspective he was terrible on several very specific points and made a large number of mistakes, any of which meant that had anyone decided to fight they had a fair crack at him.  Do not be misled by the media -- anyone who intends such an act is likely at least as good at what he or she intends to do as this jackwad was.

The video makes clear that your only sane option 99% of the time, because you're not likely to be where you can get to hard cover and secure a barrier between you and the gunman, is fight.

The reason the authorities do not want you to conclude the only sane option is fight and for everyone to have that engraved in their head is simple: The next question after you conclude the correct option is "fight" is going to be "with what?" and there is only one sane answer to that question too: WITH A GUN.

If your only sane option is to fight and the only sane answer to "with what" is with a gun then any sane person winds up concluding that so-called "gun control" is intentionally misnamed -- any such "law" is actually a nutjob murderer body count enhancement act and those politicians and others demanding same are demanding that you surrender your life.

Never mind this load of crap from Faux Snooze which, if you actually download and read the "manifesto" you will instantly recognize as a flat-out lie.

The suspect wrote in his 74-page manifesto that he paid for his travels using money from bitcoin investments and described himself as a white supremacist who was out to avenge attacks in Europe perpetrated by Muslims.

Absolute nonsense -- this is a flat-out lie, as have been essentially all of the claims made as to motivation and intent (never mind "blame") tossed around by the entire cadre of media, including CNN, MSNBC, CNBC and everyone else.

They all know full well they're lying too -- from the attempts to claim that this guy "praised Trump" (when in fact he said "dear god no" -- complete with little "g") to their willful and intentional refusal to print the fact that he stated the government most-aligned with his beliefs is that of China.

Shall I quote the introduction to the shooter's manifesto?

It’s the birthrates.
It’s the birthrates.
It’s the birthrates.
If there is one thing I want you to remember from these writings, its that
the birthrates must change. Even if we were to deport all Non-Europeans
from our lands tomorrow, the European people would still be spiraling
into decay and eventual death.


But despite this sub-replacement fertility rate, the population in the West
is increasing, and rapidly.
How is this possible?
Mass immigration and the higher fertility rates of the immigrants
themselves are causing this increase in population.
We are experiencing an invasion on a level never seen before in history.
Millions of people pouring across our borders, legally.Invited by the state
and corporate entities to replace the White people who have failed to
reproduce, failed to create the cheap labour, new consumers and tax base
that the corporations and states need to thrive.

(Copied verbatim other than the bolding, typos and grammatical errors included.)

Mathematically that analysis is exactly correct.

He then states exactly why he carried out the attack in the next page and cites many reasons, but the first is named as the most important of all.

Why did you carry out the attack?
To most of all show the invaders that our lands will never be their lands,
our homelands are our own and that, as long as a white man still lives,
they will NEVER conquer our lands and they will never replace our

The entire media complex is lying to you and has been since this event took place.

That the shooter is obviously deranged does not give the media or anyone else license to lie.

They are lying about the shooter's motivation and political alignment just as they have been lying about what you must do if you find yourself in such a circumstance as the worshipers in that mosque.

It is for this very reason that in those places where there is no First Amendment they are now threatening their own citizens with prison -- so they can continue to lie and cause you to die when, not if, the next nutjob comes around and wants to slaughter you.

In addition the media and governments most certainly do not want there to be any public debate about intentional policies of bringing unskilled people into a nation coldly calculated and focused on those who bear the greatest number of children, a set of policies which has nothing to do with humanitarian matters and everything to do with cheapening the labor force despite full knowledge that said policies screw native-born people blind.

View this entry with comments (opens new window)